Talk:2013 Union of Everett Elections
Can I run for election? -Sunkist- (talk) 06:03, February 27, 2013 (UTC) In what way do you mean? Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 07:18, February 27, 2013 (UTC) Question, how did you carry the South too vote for you? -Sunkist- (talk) 17:39, July 8, 2013 (UTC) :Well, minus gay rights, conservatives support the Second Amendment to the death, and with Spencer being the only ultra-pro gun rights candidate and her obsessive stance against foreign influences in the UN and the United States screwing with our civil liberties, she obviously attracted all those anti-government rednecks, gun nuts and patriots of the South. And when you compare total national population with the populations of typical conservative voting groups, the overwhelming majority of Everett consists of liberal, libertarian and moderate types, flooding in from the Mexican states, the Canadian far north and of course, the highly populated New England area and North-Northeast. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 19:50, July 8, 2013 (UTC) :::I'd think if the former Republican groups or conservative groups ran a conservative Roman Catholic (attracting both from Quebec and Mexico) that was pro-gun, pro-life, anti-gay marriage and was from lets say from one of the big swing states, Florida, I'd think Spencer would be kicked out. But still, you'd never see anyone in the Deep South would vote for an atheist lesbian, it would never work, or Indiana, Kentucky or West Virginia, or even Virginia and Florida. You're anti-coal attitude would be extremely unfriendly too the 25,000,000 people in Appalachia, and the Bible Belt would really dislike you. Sure, you may have the libertarians on your side, but you would loose the moderate American. Spencer has one half that looks good, with the anti-government and pro-gun, but then being an atheist lesbian kills it, you get some one like Spencer but straight and religious, you have yourself a winner. -Sunkist- (talk) 20:29, July 8, 2013 (UTC) ::You would think that right? But then Obama gets elected... not once, but twice. A black man, "from Kenya", an alleged "Muslim" and "socialist" who is anti-gun, pro-LGBT rights, exterminating civil rights and the Constitution and has only forwarded the failures of the Bush era Patriot Act with the National Defense Authorization Act and his Obamacare catastrophe, among a million other scandals, Benghazi, Fast & Furious, etc. You'd be surprised at the stupidity of the average American. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 20:58, July 8, 2013 (UTC) ::::Alleged. Obama is a Christian and is a moderate, sure you can go as far as allegations, but when you take the 'In God We Trust' off of coins and walk around with a blonde barbie, you have all the truth in front of you. All I'm thinking when I see our President Spencer is "She's a lesbian and a atheist.". A lot of liberals are still Christians, and we're fine with having "Under God" in our pledge. -Sunkist- (talk) 21:46, July 8, 2013 (UTC) ::::::Nor does she attempt to hid her lesbianism or her views of religion, which wouldn't work well in the red South. Politicians tread a thin line when they critize religion in the South, and many are eveserated on the national stage for it. Also, Romney won most of the south, not Obama. Obama won because he took many of the states in the West, a region that Everett doesn't control. Without the liberals of the west in Spencer's pocket, she's running an election which is literally divided between the liberal north and the conservative south. Spencer couldn't realistically win down there for a number of reasons. Her personal beliefs aside, she crushed North Carolina's laws, which is very authoritorian and given that it was passed with the majority of the state population's support, North Carolinians wouldn't be to eager to vote for what they would view as a dictator crushing their right to choose. Plus, are laws regarding gay marriage overturned the decisions made by citizens in 14 states, nearly half the population. Second, there is her push to force gay marriage on states that don't support it. She has once again push aside the views of the majority in the south to sate the palates of those in the north. Finally, many in the south would still view Spencer as an atheist, as an opponent of religion. They would diffenently vote for a Kingston rather than a Spencer. In 2012, most Americans voted for Republicans, even in traditionally blue states. And in areas Obama "won", those were by close margins. Obama won on a chance, not a landslide. Americans aren't as stupid as you want to believe. No matter how you look at this, it just doesn't make since for Spencer to carry the votes of the south. New England would fall into her lap, but the South is Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 22:15, July 8, 2013 (UTC) :Well, for a moment there I thought we lived in a free country where Freedom of Expression, "Spencer's lesbianism", is a nationally protected right. There is also the "equal protection under the law" clause, making North Carolina's legal opinions, both under the real U.S. and Everett, void. Also this: United States v. Windsor, in which I'm still waiting on those ultra conservative riots to start. Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 23:20, July 8, 2013 (UTC) :::Well she is gay right? So I hardly see why "Spencer's lesbianism" would require quotes or special attention. Also, southerners would simply regard "equal protection under the law" clause as an excuse to trample on their ability to excercise their voting rights. Also, the clause didn't extend the protection to gays and lesbians, only women and African Americans. Thus, under U.S. law, North Carolina's decision is still active and very alive. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:36, July 8, 2013 (UTC) I agree with Sunkist. Doesn't seem like the people of "Dumbfuckistan" (as you so passionately put it) would be too obsessed with voting for someone who is the antithesis of everything they believe it. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 18:34, July 8, 2013 (UTC) I feel that most people who disagreed strongly with Everett's policies would simply leave the country, but I doubt that the Southern states (south of Missouri, Kentucky, and Virginia) except for Florida and maybe North Carolina would join the union in the first place. :/ —TimeMaster (talk • ) 22:45, July 8, 2013 (UTC) Well they are Americans, born and raised in the country. From their point of view, they watched as a 21-year old athiest lesbian took over the government by presenting some xeroxed documents to the government printed from Wikileaks. Its the same reason the Syrians fighting against Assad didn't just leave Syria when they disagreed with them. Its their home. Why no civil war has broken out in Everett is beyond me (or how half the stuff that happened was even possible), but simple disagreements won't force a person out of their homeland unless they know they can't win. But I agree with you, it's very implausible for the southern states to join a liberal who flatly stomps on everything they despise. I've rarely seen a Democrat win a Southern state in any presidental race. Once again, if this had just been the states in the north, it would make sense, but how Spencer even gained the south is what confuses me. -_-' Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 23:36, July 8, 2013 (UTC) *implying she was openly lesbian between 2002 and 2011 *implying Wikileaks existed in 2002 *implying Spencer has stomped on anything outside of stating her personal and Constitutionally protected opinions *implying the United States is not Secular as per the U.S. Constitution *implying Everett uses an Electoral College system of voting like anything similar to the U.S. **implying that Spencer would lose to sparsely populated rural conservative voters with intensely populated urban "blue state" areas in "red states" on her side and typically "pro Democrat" in the U.S. *implying Spencer "took over" anything *implying most court or legal evidence isn't "xeroxed documents" Ham Ham Time (User/Talk/World/WAT) 00:24, July 9, 2013 (UTC) Omitting the first two responses, clearly you ignored my statement where I explictly state " her personal beliefs aside". She stomped on the personal and Constitutionally protected opinions of the states she came to govern. It is very much a paradox that her opinions are constitutionally protected, as are those of the citizens, until they directly contridict those held by Spencer. Also, she did indeed take over the country as she somehow got a group of governors more qualified than Spencer to pick her instead of any of them, which would have been more realistic. Regarding the blue in red state issue, elections in Everett run on direct elections, correct? At least I think thats the system, unless I read the wrong page or something, which I highly doubt. Those "sparsely-populated" rural areas are more populous that the blue areas when you add them up. Moreso is that fact that even in these blue areas, many of the people are still religious, and know Spencer is an atheist, which would play a major role in the fact that those blue areas are in the Bible Belt. Also, being secular doesn't mean crap. Turkey is secular, yet Muslims are the only ones that'll get any support. Kennedy was Catholic, but the secular U.S. still found it hard to support him. The United States is secular in name only. Heck, with all the "God bless Americas" and "in God we trust", I'm sure you would have gotten the memo already. On you second response, who did Spencer get her hands on classified documents that even determined watchdog groups couldn't aquire? Many sensible American voters would pay attention to that tiny fact, and some might conclude that she was in with the government, as if Wikileaks didn't exist, then she aquired the information through "illict" activities, which would give rise to the belief she either stole the information, bought the information, or knew about the infomation to begin with, and simply used it as a stepping stool to gain power. If I could come up with this, then there are thousand other Americans who can as well. Oh, as for the first response, I'm sure someone in the South would feel that they were tricked into supporting a women who played on their emotions only to reveal herself as the anti-everything of their beliefs. There are people just as crazy as the birthers who could drum up support on these extremely important matters you and Spencer have failed to address. I'm only implying because its an observable fact. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 01:48, July 9, 2013 (UTC) ---- Everyone remembers that the "con" in 'Con'worlds stands for "constructed", right? We seem to all be very confused about how certain things are happening somewhere because people aren't like that in some real dimension. Lol, this isn't Alternative Wikipedia By Creative People, it's all fake and fantasy. Take it easy. -Signed by Warmonkey (talk • ) 23:42, July 8, 2013 (UTC) Of that I agree Super. However, UP has stated that this is supposed to be realistic. He has stated in the past that other nations were not realistic, whilst Everett was. I'm not making accusations or the like here, but UP has indeed grounded many of his developments on the real world, henceforth the reason TM, Sunkist and I have asked the questions we have, seeking to understand how UP could say Everett commands the power it does in the South while still at the same time stating that it is realistic and possible. That's all. American politics are wierd, but many aspects are easy to comprehend, and difficult to change. Vivaporius: "I don't need a slogan" 00:05, July 9, 2013 (UTC)